Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 5401609" data-attributes="member: 99817">See, it's gone like this.I identified the problem in the thief pickpocketing the king scene as one of a fight over narrative control. Over who gets to control the fiction.You rejected that, saying players never have narrative control.I pointed you to a number of games where they do, in game and pre-game.You said 'Oh, but that's not D&D' I'm talking about D&D, it never happens in D&D.Well, I'm afraid you're talking horlicks. I can give narrative control, world creation, NPC creation, problem creation and story progression to players as easily in D&D as in Sorcerer. Just with a certain GMing approach.I've even shown you the first step by getting the players to say what's in the king's purse and therefore how to give them control of the story. And you still flatly assert that it's impossible.Then you say that giving the rogue freedom is going to cause all sorts of problems. Of course it is, if you railroad them. I've shown you a couple of options of how not to railroad the rogue or the paladin and you've said, variously 'Now you're just making stuff up' and 'No, you're just railroading the paladin, I'm railroading the rogue.'Key point 1. Yes, I just made stuff up. Stuff which helps tell a story. Stuff which helps tell the story the players are doing. That's just called GMing. That's what we're doing. GMing the situation.(I'd point out that you've made loads of stuff up to try and enforce your railroad - about legions of guards, and how pickpocketing him is impossible with all the people around. About how it's an automatic death sentence. Even how the Paladin spots the pickpocket attempt before it happens and tackles the thief to the ground. Must be a mind-reading Paladin I guess.)Key point 2. I haven't railroaded anyone. The rogue has acted - and if you remove his agency to act (your option) you deny the player any function at your table. So I've let the rogue act and the rogue's action has prompted a moral dilemma on the part of the paladin. You're accusing me of railroading through inaction? Jeez.Key point 3: Whether the 'rest of the group' feels this behaviour disruptive or not is irrelevant to my definition of the problem being 'Who controls the fiction?'. Calling it disruptive means they side with the GM on narrative control rights. If they want the player to have control of the story, the GMs a railroader. If it never comes up, the game runs with fun for everyone.So if you want to argue about it more, you need to provide an alternative definition of railroading. Without that, as has been the case, you're not actually arguing, you're just continuing this barrage of gainsaying.Have fun.</blockquote>

Verification